Higher Priorities

Here's something that directly contradicts the Republican argument that Bush "goes after the terrorists."

In his effort to claim he is the strongest candidate on national security, President Bush has lately been speaking a lot about how he is doing everything possible to track down terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - the man thought to be responsible for escalating attacks on U.S. soldiers in Iraq and just yesterday beheaded another civilian. But it was Bush who in 2002 and 2003 rejected three plans to strike and neutralize Zarqawi because he believed a successful strike would undermine the public case for targeting Saddam Hussein.

As NBC News reported, "Long before the war, the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself - but never pulled the trigger." In June 2002, the Pentagon drafted plans to attack a camp Zarqawi was at with cruise missiles and airstrikes. The plan was killed by the White House. Four months later, as Zarqawi planned to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe, the Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, yet "the White House again killed it." In January 2003, the Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the White House killed it.

Military officials insisted their case for attacking Zarqawi's operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam, which was based partially on supposed ties to Al Qaeda.

So the Bush administration decided to play politics with security by putting regime change in Iraq above taking out one of Al-Qaeda's top members. Many people say Bush is a strong leader in the war on terrorism. Well, I do not think one's steadfastness in misleading people makes one a strong leader. It is clear this president and administration have higher priorities than terrorism, and one should not expect things to change if they are elected to four more years.